2016-07-23 Airport scanners and why they should be avoided

1) Below is a letter to Dr. Hedy Fry who is MP for Vancouver Centre. She was on the HESA Committee that reviewed Safety Code 6, and is someone who could help us in this fight to have regulations over the wireless devices. Please consider writing her with your concerns even if she isn’t your MP.

2) After reading about my experience with Wi-Fi having been turned on remotely, one member activated the Wi-Fi on his laptop and reports that the levels were higher than anything else he had measured. The levels are especially concerning because the person sitting at the Wi-Fi enabled computer is so close to the source – the computer and probably the modem.

The Wi-Fi on the laptop needs to be disabled at the program level. Just turning off the Wi-Fi at the keyboard may not be enough. To turn the Wi-Fi off on my computer (a HP), I go into “networking” and disable the wireless option.

3) Most of us realize that any form of microwave radiation is dangerous and try to avoid it whenever we can. Another device that the government is misleading people about is the airport scanner. It should be avoided even though the only option is a body pat-down, along with the occasional snide comments from the TSA people aimed at making the person “opting out” feel uncomfortable.

“The fact that millimeter wave technology is used in the treatment of skin cancer (due to its known skin-heating properties), means it undeniably has an effect on human cells. This heating is a direct result of microwave frequencies entering the skin and inducing a certain level of atomic motion within the cellular structure. This is really just a fancy way of saying that millimeter wave radiation microwaves your skin.

Just how much this millimeter wave radiation microwaves your skin is where push comes to shove. But most scientists are in agreement that any amount of radiation poses at least some level of risk. The public deserves to know both this level of risk and what they can do to minimize or eliminate it.”

5) In Segment #13 of my response to the BCUC’s draft report re. $$meter safety, US statistics are used to reassure that smeters are safe. But there is no way to verify that the statistics are any more credible than the ones kept in BC, which I have proven are not credible at all. Please note that there were 20,700 fires caused by electrical distribution equipment. Len Garis said that when this term is used, usually it will relate to the meter or meter base.

I understand that Jerry Flynn has written you regarding the health implications of our wireless technology and the inadequacy of Safety Code 6 to deal with it.

I recognize some of the vocabulary related to this technology, but otherwise, I know NOTHING about the science behind wireless. I DO know that when I forget to unplug my modem and router, I don’t sleep well! (I have no microwave, no cordless phone, and my cell phone is always off, as I have no reception at my house.)

I hope you will pursue some effective action to SERIOUSLY examine the safety of this technology. I am old enough to vividly remember tobacco science, and I fear that the wireless industry is generating the same quality of science.

KEY: Highlighted text is from Sharon Noble Non-highlighted text is the draft report as written by BCUC staff.

= = =

US Statistics

In the United States they have a similar fire reporting system implemented on a national basis. The US has approximately 125 million residential electric meters12 as compared with the approximately 2 million meters in BC. The reporting system categories are slightly different than the BC system and are thus not directly comparable.

Comment: Please explain the term “slightly different” if you are using the statistics in these table. If they are “not directly comparable”, then how should the reader interpret them?

Table 1 shows the average number of fires reported on an annual basis in the US.

Table 1: US electrical fire statistics

US Annual Average Residential Fires 2007-2011 13

Electrical distribution or lighting equipment

20,700

Service supply wiring from utility

690

Fuse or circuit breaker panel

1,350

Meter or meter box

610

Wiring from meter box to circuit breaker

530

In the US from 2007 through 2011, there were 610 fires per year where the ignition source was attributed to the electric meter or meter box. From 2007 to 2011 the number of smart meters installed in the US increased from approximately 2.5 million to 37 million.14 From 2002 through 2005, prior to the installation of a significant number of smart meters in the US, there were on average 940 home fires per year where the ignition source was attributed to the electric meter or meter box.15 This data shows that some electrical fires whose ignition source was attributed to the meter or meter box do occur regardless of the type of meter used.

If the US incident rate (610 fires at meter or meter box for 125 million meters) is applied to the number of meters in BC (2 million) the equivalent BC rate is 10 meter or meter box related fires per year.

Why should we consider this to be a relevant comparison? Has it been confirmed that the US stats are credible and do not have many of the systemic problems that the BC Fire Commission reports have?

Norman Lambe, an insurance inspector in the US, has complained that his reports are often incomplete because the utilities are removing the meters from the fire scenes before he can do his job. This fact alone means that these statistics are not credible, and that no one can say that smart meters are not causing fires.

I have asked several agencies for incidents where the analog meter has caused fires, and have never received a response. Because of the construction material of the meter, which is glass and metal, it is highly unlikely that an analog would be as flammable or prone to fire as a smart meter.

Comment: Again, as commented previously, prior to using any statistics, the author must validate that the numbers are truly representative of the real facts and are complete and appropriate for the situation before basing any decisions on them.